Very Bad Wizards

Tamler and David leech off of their listeners and dedicate an episode to their favorite comments, questions, and criticisms from the past few weeks (but not before Tamler goes on a rant about bicycle helmets). Included in this episode: Does doing research on hypothetical moral dilemmas actually say anything about how people would act in real life? Do people make different moral judgments in their native language than in a more recently acquired language? Do Tamler and David only appeal to intuitions when it's convenient for the view they are defending? Do they hold "barbaric" views about justice and revenge? Does doing philosophy make your life better? And, perhaps most importantly, why do we seem to mention porn on every episode?  Links Bicycle helmet effectiveness [wikipedia.org] Tamler's appearance on The Partially Examined Life podcast [partiallyexaminedlife.com] Axons and Axioms podcast [axonsandaxioms.com] Spacetime Mind podcast [spacetimemind.com] A valuable site if you're interested in putting toget

May I have your attention please? Will the real Josh Knobe please stand up? Will the real... [you know what, screw this--we're just dating ourselves.] X-phi phenom Josh Knobe rejoins the podcast to talk about the true self, naked people, gay preachers, and the Talmud. Plus, what happens when Tamler takes a sleeping pill by mistake in the afternoon and goes on Facebook? Why do you have get so drunk on Purim? And Dave discovers a Google-assisted loophole that allows you to be an immoral shit your whole life and get away with it.  Links Joshua Knobe's home page [yale.edu] XXX: 30 Porn-Star Portraits by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders [amazon.com affiliate link] Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). More than a body: mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101, 1207. [yale.edu] Moral Scrupulosity [wikipedia.org] Newman, G. E., Bloom, P., & Knobe, J. (2014). Value Judgments and the True Self. Personality and Social Psych

A British tabloid article about kids, brains, and spatial skills somehow provokes the biggest argument ever on the podcast. Dave and Tamler get into it about gender, toys, properly rounded brains, and balanced "play diets." Is Dave a sanctimonious toe-the-line academic liberal?  Is Tamler a Fox-News watching, mysoginist genetic determinist? Do they actually disagree about anything?  Plus Dave takes Tamler back after his fling with Partially Examined Life,  and we discuss whether the new documentary The Unbelievers the atheist version of God is Not Dead? Links The Partially Examined Life podcast, and Tamler's Precognition of Ep. 93. [partiallyexaminedlife.com] Girls and boys DO have different brains – should they have different toys? by Rachel Carlyle [express.co.uk] The Unbelievers [unbelieversmovie.com] My Growing Disappointment with the New Atheist Movement: A Review of the The UnBelievers.  Ami Palmer.  [missiontotransition.blogspot.com] Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math=

David and Tamler argue about the use of autonomous robots and drones in warfare.  Could it lead to less suffering during wars and afterwards? Would nations be motivated to design robots that behave ethically on the battlefield? Can David get through an episode without mentioning Star Trek? Plus, Tamler distances himself from the villainous philosophy professor in the new movie God is Not Dead and David complains about the growing number of porn journals.   Links Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) [kipp.org] God's Not Dead [imdb.org] Arkin, R. C. (2010). The case for ethical autonomy in unmanned systems. Journal of Military Ethics, 9(4), 332-341. Kahn, P. W. (2002). The Paradox of Riskless Warfare. Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly, 22(3), 2-7. [yale.edu] Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for war: The robotics revolution and conflict in the twenty-first century. Penguin. [amazon.com affiliate link]  "A Taste of Armageddon" Episode 23, Star Trek (The Original Series) [wikipedia.org] Moral Machines in the Mil

Dave and Tamler talk about a recent study that seems to support the view that "justice is what the judge had for breakfast" (or at least how long ago the parole board had breakfast), and that makes Tamler question his position on widening judicial discretion in criminal justice.  In the second segment David tries to work out his guilt about manipulating consumers into buying stuff for whatever shadowy organization employs him (BEWorks!), and we discuss the ethics of nudges in government and consumer marketing. Should the government frame issues like organ donation in ways that will benefit society? How much of a threat are nudges to our autonomy? Should Apple take steps to ensure that people can control themselves when making in-app purchases? Tamler even comes up with a "theory," which means that there must have been something wrong with him. Please note that portions of the audio during the second segment are little spotty, likely due to a hex or poltergeist in one of the microphones.  We'll have that worke

Can a fully determined creature deliberate? How big a role does conscious reasoning play in moral judgment and everyday life? Are we responsible for our thoughts and actions? Paul Bloom rejoins us against his better judgment to discuss his book "Just Babies" and his recent article in The Atlantic that set the internet on the fire and riled up the likes of Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne.  Plus, what's the difference (if any) between getting into a Star Trek transporter and getting an axe to the head, and why does David know so much about boy bands? Links Just Babies by Paul Bloom [amazon.com-vbw affiliate link] The War on Reason by Paul Bloom [theatlantic.com] Jerry Coyne replies to Paul Bloom's Article [whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com] Bloom replies to Coyne [whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com] Tamler is the only one who realized he has a face for radio.  Special Guest: Paul Bloom. Support Very Bad Wizards

Dave keeps trying to explain to Tamler that we're not a movie podcast, but somehow they're doing another podcast about movies. This time they each list their top 5 movies featuring moral dilemmas. Also, Tamler tries to rationalize the Woody Allen controversy, Ozymandias from Watchmen says "screw you Paul Bloom," Dave confuses Maggie Gyllenhaal with Droopy, and for the second time ever we have to censor something one of us (Tamler) says. Put on your astronaut adult diapers, folks, it's a long one.  Links Dylan Farrow's Story [nytimes.com] Woody Allen Speaks Out [nytimes.com] The Woody Allen Allegations: Not So Fast [thedailybeast.com] "It's shockingly easy to create false memories" by Cara Laney [thedailybeast.com] Elizabeth Loftus [wikipedia.org] Watchmen Graphic Novel [wikipedia.org] The Vengeance Trilogy [wikipedia.org] Droopy Dog [wikipedia.org] Maggie Gyllenhal looks like Droopy Dog [cheezeburger.com] "Hard Determinism, Punishment, and Funishment" by Saul Smilansky [philosophycommons.typepad.com] T

Jesse Graham joins us for part 2 of our discussion on the nature of morality, and his recent paper on Moral Foundations Theory. He highlights the key components of MFT, defends himself against our accusations of weaseling out of the normative implications of MFT, champions "Synechdoche, New York" as one of the greatest films ever made, and comes out of the closet as a rationalist. Also in this episode, Tamler begins to defend Sam Harris (you read that right) from Dan Dennett's criticisms of Harris' Free Will--and then we pull back and realize that we need to devote a whole episode to Dennett's review.   Links Dan Dennett's review of "Free Will" by Sam Harris [naturalism.org] Free Will by Sam Harris [amazon.com affiliate link] Jesse Graham's lab website [usc.edu] Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism by Jesse Graham et al.  Synechdoche, New York   (RIP Phllip Seymour Hoffman!) Special Guest: Jesse Graham. Support Very Bad Wizards

Dave and Tamler bounce back this week after having to trash the last episode. Does morality ultimately boil down to a single principle (such as harm or justice), or is there more to ethical life than is dreamt of in the minds of philosophers? We settle this question once and for all in the first of a 2-part episode in which we discuss Jesse Graham et al's recent paper on Moral Foundations Theory. (Jesse Graham himself will join us for part 2).  Plus: how liberal is this podcast?  We'll give you the precise percentage after taking a Time.com quiz that purports to measure political leanings, (and which includes that perennial litmus test of political preferences: is it OK to come home and find your partner watching porn?)      Links Can TIME predict your politics? [science.time.com] Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism Foundations Theory (in press, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology) by Graham, J. et al [usc.edu] Old School [imdb.com] "Boy, I've Put You in a Really Tou

Who is the real you? What happens to your identity when your body gets cloned or reconstituted with all the same memories and character traits? Does society construct our true selves or repress them? Can we ever escape our pasts and become different people?   Dave thinks conceptual analysis and arousal measuring devices can solve all these problems but allows Tamler his dream of temporarily becoming the host of a movie podcast. They list their top 5 favorite movies about personal identity. Plus, do they have to eat still more crow--this time from Sam Harris?        Links Personal Identity [plato.stanford.edu] Google Glass [youtube.com] Tamler's Top 5 5. Fight Club 4. A Clockwork Orange 3. Infernal Affairs 2. Moon 1. A History of Violence David's Top 5 5. Blade Runner 4. Vertigo 3. Looper  2. Groundhog Day 1. Back to the Future Honorable Mentions Solaris (Russian version) Being John Malkovich Memento My Fair Lady All of Me Zelig  One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest Spirited Away The Prestige Shutter Island Unforg

The guest we've been waiting for--Nina Strohminger--joins us to talk about the connection between disgust and humor, cheap laughs, moral character and personal identity, and the British opt-in plan for porn.  Plus: how psychologists measure erections and Dave goes Platonist about the form of hilarity. Tamler's daughter should have issued an extra strong disclaimer for this one. Links Nina Strohminger [ninastrohminger.com] David Cameron Proposes Porn Filter [thedailybeast.com] Strohminger, N. and Nichols, S. (in press). The Essential Moral Self. Cognition. Special Guest: Nina Strohminger. Support Very Bad Wizards

Our most irresponsible episode ever!  Dave and Tamler talk about two reviews of a book they haven't read--Joshua Greene's Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them--and feel only a little shame.   (Since the recording, at least one of us has finished the book).  Can Greene successfully debunk all non-utilitarian intuitions?  Does Greene have a dark enough view of human nature?  What would an ideal moral world look like?   Will Dave ever stop making fun of Tamler's haunted boy haircut?  We answer all of these questions and more.  Plus we respond to a listener's email and read a couple of our favorite iTunes reviews. Links Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them by Joshua Greene [amazon.com] Joshua Greene's website [harvard.edu] Why can't we all just get along? The uncertain biological basis of morality. Robert Wright reviews "Moral Tribes" for The Atlantic. You Can't Learn About Morality from Brain Scans: The problem with moral psychology. Thomas Nagel Reviews "M

Dave and Tamler talk about the influence of character judgments on attributions of blame. What is the function of the blame--to assign responsibility or to judge a person's character? Is it fair that we blame douchebags more than good people who commit exactly the same act, or is it yet another cognitive bias that should be avoided? Plus we delve into the Richie Incognito hazing story (maybe a little early since the story has developed) and Tamler tries to figure out how to teach the Gospels to students who know roughly 100 times as much about them than he does.  Links "The Miami Dolphins and Everything that Will Never Make Sense." by Andrew Sharp.  (grantland.com) Interview with Richie Incognito (youtube.com)  Gospel of Matthew [wikipedia.org] Synoptic Gospels [wikipedia.org] Pizarro, D.A. & Tannenbaum, D. (2011). Bringing character back: How the motivation to evaluate character influences judgments of moral blame. In M. Mikulincer & Shaver, P. (Eds) The Social psychology of morality: Exploring the

Special guest Will Wilkinson joins the podcast to talk about whether fiction makes us better people, and to discuss his recent Daily Beast article that trashed Dave's profession and livelihood. Also, Dave and Tamler try to make sense of Ancient Greek justice in a myth about incest, adultery, daughter-killing, husband-killing, matricide, cannibalism, and trash talking to disembodied heads.     Links Agamemnon [wikipedia.org] Will Wilkinson [wikipedia.org]  The Will Wilkinson article that hurt David's feelings [thedailybeast.com] Hurt Feelings by Flight of the Concords [youtube.com]  Does great literature make us better? by Gregory Currie [nytimes.com]  Reading literature makes us smarter and nicer by Annie Murphy Paul [time.com] Want to learn how to think? Read fiction by Tom Jacobs [psmag.com] In Pursuit of Happiness Research [pdf] by Will Wilkinson     Special Guest: Will Wilkinson. Support Very Bad Wizards

Special guest Laurie Santos (Psychology, Yale) joins us to talk about what animal cognition can tell us about human nature. Why are other primates better at resisting the misleading influence of others than humans? Is conformity a byproduct of our sophisticated cultural learning capacities? Are we more like Chimpanzees or Bonobos? Why does Dave spend so much time writing Smurf fan fiction? [Smurf you, Tamler. -dap]. Also, Dave and Tamler talk about a scathing review of Malcolm Gladwell's new book, and Eliza Sommers poses the question of the day. This was a fun one.  Links Comparative Cognition Laboratory [yale.edu] Laurie Santos and Jesse Bering on The Mind Report [bloggingheads.tv]  Buy Jesse Bering's latest book "Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us" [amazon.com affiliate link] Philospher's Pipe (a directory of podcasts related to philosophy) [philosopherspipe.com] Smurfette [wikipedia.org] Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglod

Part II of our discussion on Rai and Fiske (sort of):  We answer a listener's email and in the process get into an episode long argument about moral intuitions, psychological facts, the implications of moral disagreement. Before that, we talk about the recent study about testicles and parenting.  We don't play small ball on this one. Links Testicular volume is inversely correlated with nurturing-related brain activity in human fathers [pnas.org] "Study: You May be a Terrible Dad Because You Have Enormous Testicles"  "Aw Nuts!  Nurturing Dads Have Smaller Testicles, Study Shows" "Want to Know if Your Partner Will Be a Good Dad?  Measure His Testicles."  Frances Kamm [wikipedia.org] Reflective Equilibrium [plato.stanford.edu] Doris, J. M., and Plakias, A. (2008). “How to Argue about Disagreement: Evaluative Diversity and Moral Realism.” In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Moral Psychology, Volume 2: The Cognitive Science of Morality. Cambridge: MIT Press   Support Very Bad Wizards

In the first of a two-part episode, we discuss one of our favorite recent papers--Tage Rai and Alan Page Fiske's 2011 paper on how social relationships shape and motivate our moral emotions and judgments.  We also talk about Sam Harris' $20,000 Moral Landscape  Challenge, and whether there's any real chance of convincing him that the arguments he made in The Moral Landscape (first published in English in 2011) are wrong.  Links Sam Harris' Moral Landscape Challenge [samharris.org] Alan Fiske's overview of Relational Models Theory [sscnet.ucla.edu] Tage Rai's research [kellogg.northwestern.edu] Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological review, 118, 57-75. [irsp.ucla.edu]   Support Very Bad Wizards

Dave and Tamler celebrate their one year anniversary and 30th episode with one of their least cynical episodes yet.  They talk about 5 philosophy/psychology(-ish) books that influenced and inspired them throughout the years.  They also respond to a listener email that accuses them (mostly Tamler) of being "reckless and irresponsible" in their discussion of responding to insults.   Episode Links  (Please note that the Top 5 links below are to purchase books through amazon.com via the Very Bad Wizards amazon affiliate account)  Tamler's Top 5 5. The Razor's Edge 4. Culture Of Honor: The Psychology Of Violence In The South (New Directions in Social Psychology)/Humiliation: And Other Essays on Honor, Social Discomfort, and Violence 3. The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene (Popular Science) 2. Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions 1. Jacques the Fatalist and His Master (Penguin Classics) David's Top 5 5. Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman 4. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Go

Dave and Tamler try to artificially bulk up their expertise on the ethics of performance enhancing drugs and end up raising a lot more questions than they answer.  Why do we condemn certain methods for boosting performance on the playing field and praise others?  Why is it OK to train at high altitudes but not in hyperbaric chambers that simulate high altitudes?  Why is Lance Armstrong a villain and Graham Greene (who wrote many of his most famous novels on benzedrine) a hero?   Is there genetic therapy to cure haunted child haircuts, and if there is, how can Tamler get access to it?  Of course, no discussion on PEDs would be complete without clips from South Park and Sanford and Son.  Also, David misremembers Lyle Alzado as a regular on an 80's sitcom because of a single appearance on "Small Wonder."  We probably should have taken some podcast enhancing drugs for this one.   Links Performance-enhancing drugs [wikipedia.org] Benzedrine [wikipedia.org]  What do Auden, Sartre, and Ayn Rand have in common? Amp

Dave and Tamler try their best to do a show without guests--we talk about moral persuasion, motivated reasoning, and whether it's legitimate to use emotionally charged rhetoric in a philosophical argument. Plus, we describe how students proceed through the "Stages-of-Singer," and Tamler finally defends himself against Dave's slanderous accusation of hypocrisy about animal welfare.   Links Thomson, J. J. (1971). A defense of abortion.  Philosophy & Public Affairs,1, 47-66. Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral.  The Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183-202. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 568. Ditto, P.H., Pizarro, D.A., & Tannenbaum, D. (2009). Motivated Moral Reasoning. In B. H. Ross (Series Ed.) & D. M. Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 50: Moral Judgment